Anselm argument and problem within

[Philosopher19]

Better to be really good than imaginary good. This is objectively true by semantics/definition/reason.

It's nonsense to claim that a normative evaluation such as "better" is the sort of thing that might qualify as an objective truth. I direct you to mister Hume for the explanation of this problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

So are you saying that it is not objectively the case that that which no greater than can be conceived of is the following:

A truly perfect existence. Objectively it's better for a truly perfect existence to be real than imaginary. Or can you find me a rational being that says no to this?

And if you say that it is not objectively the case, can you tell me what being with access to semantics and reason will non-contradictorily say "a really truly perfect existence is not that which no greater than can be conceived of"? That would be like saying "a triangle is not triangular".

Whatever you say is that which no greater than can be conceived of other than a truly perfect existence, will be better in a truly perfect existence. Again, a truly perfect existence is that which no greater than can be conceived of. This is not subjective opinion. This is a matter of pure reason. As in it is objectively the case that a truly perfect existence is that which no greater than can be conceived.

[Philosopher19]

Let's focus on omnipotent for a moment. That means that God has to be extremely strong, or better to say infinitely strong. However, according to Cantor's theorem, the infinity is not the largest number. In fact, he shows that there is no largest infinity since there is always a number bigger than what you can imagine. Therefore, the strongest quality does not exist either. This questions the first premise. Therefore, his argument does not follow.

If infinity is a number, it is the largest number. Where infinity is a number, saying infinity is not the largest number is like saying triangle is not triangular.

Consider the possibility that Cantor was wrong to say infinity comes in different sizes. Does infinity coming in different sizes even make clear sense to you in the same way that it makes sense to you that objectively speaking, that which no greater than can be conceived of is a truly perfect being/existence (God and Existence or the Omnipresent or the Infinite denote the same)

There is a difference between that which is set to go on forever and that which is infinite. The latter is actually infinite, the former is like trying to count to infinity. Even if you count forever, you will never reach infinity.

Cantor was right.

Cantor suggested that infinity comes in various sizes. Can you answer the following:

Sets x and y are infinite sets
Can we establish set x as being bigger than set y without counting the number of items in sets x and y?
Can we count to infinity?

If we have not counted the number of items in sets x and y, how do we know one is bigger than the other? And if we have counted, how have we reached infinity?

[Skepdick]

And if we have counted, how have we reached infinity?

Pretty easily. Computer scientists do it in their heads all the time. We just pretend we have infinite time and do stuff by induction.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2586556
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfinite_induction

[Skepdick]

It's nonsense to claim that a normative evaluation such as "better" is the sort of thing that might qualify as an objective truth. I direct you to mister Hume for the explanation of this problem.

Normative evaluation. Descriptive evaluation. Truth-claim evaluation - It's all evaluation. The word "value" is right in it.

And since you accept that it's possible to go from values to facts e.g an objective evaluation is possible then you have some kind of a double standard to explain...

Why is it possible to go from an ought to an is, but not backwards?

[mickthinks]

Do you agree [that] any belief or theory or statement that is semantically contradictory, is wrong by definition.

No, I'm not able to agree that, because I don't know what work the word "semantically" is doing in that statement. Contradiction is a semantic concept; all contradictions are semantic, surely?

I can agree to this alternative formulation if you are happy to accept it:

Any proposition (eg. statement of belief etc.) that contradicts the definition of (one or more of) its terms is wrong by definition.

"This triangle has four sides" would be an example of such a wrong-by-definition proposition.

[FlashDangerpants]

Better to be really good than imaginary good. This is objectively true by semantics/definition/reason.

It's nonsense to claim that a normative evaluation such as "better" is the sort of thing that might qualify as an objective truth. I direct you to mister Hume for the explanation of this problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

So are you saying that it is not objectively the case that that which no greater than can be conceived of is the following:

A truly perfect existence. Objectively it's better for a truly perfect existence to be real than imaginary. Or can you find me a rational being that says no to this?

And if you say that it is not objectively the case, can you tell me what being with access to semantics and reason will non-contradictorily say "a really truly perfect existence is not that which no greater than can be conceived of"? That would be like saying "a triangle is not triangular".

Whatever you say is that which no greater than can be conceived of other than a truly perfect existence, will be better in a truly perfect existence. Again, a truly perfect existence is that which no greater than can be conceived of. This is not subjective opinion. This is a matter of pure reason. As in it is objectively the case that a truly perfect existence is that which no greater than can be conceived.

At this point I think I am just saying to read the link I already gave you. Or here is a video that explains it very briefly.

The point I am simply inheriting from Hume is that there's just no deductive route to get from a fact about something being big, to a value about that bigness being good. There is a fundamental difference of type between evaluating something as an observable fact and evaluating it as a desirable quality.

Also you are equivotating very clumsily by insinuating that a triangle which might be perfect in the sense of precision is automatically perfect in the sense of praiseworthiness. This is exactly what Hume is warns about when he writes "This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, it's necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it."

[Age]

Value judgments that everyone agrees with is what is Right, in Life, and also are what everyone ought do.

Whereas, value judgments that not everyone agrees with is what is Wrong, in Life, and also what everyone ought not do.

This formula, or process, by the way is also how what is objectively or actually irrefutably True, in Life, is also found.

Truth relies on agreement, whereas Right relies not just on agreement, itself, but also on what is wanted, or not wanted.

[Philosopher19]

And if we have counted, how have we reached infinity?

Pretty easily. Computer scientists do it in their heads all the time. We just pretend we have infinite time and do stuff by induction.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2586556
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfinite_induction

So I start counting from 1 and go on forever. Will I reach infinity?

[Philosopher19]

Do you agree [that] any belief or theory or statement that is semantically contradictory, is wrong by definition.

No, I'm not able to agree that, because I don't know what work the word "semantically" is doing in that statement. Contradiction is a semantic concept; all contradictions are semantic, surely?

I can agree to this alternative formulation if you are happy to accept it:

Any proposition (eg. statement of belief etc.) that contradicts the definition of (one or more of) its terms is wrong by definition.

"This triangle has four sides" would be an example of such a wrong-by-definition proposition.

By semantically I mean meaningfully. If a semantic/meaning is contradicted, then wrong has occurred. For example, if I say "that square triangle", the meanings of square and triangular have been contradicted. A contradiction in semantics has occurred.

Do you agree that 'angles adding up to 180 degrees' is part of the definition/semantic/meaning of triangle? Do you agree that anyone who says the angles in a triangle don't add up to 180 degrees is in fact saying false/contradictory?

[Philosopher19]

Here's a new ontological argument for all who are interested.

1)
Whatever's perfectly x is indubitably x (for example, a perfect triangle is indubitably triangular. An imperfect triangle's triangularity can be faulted/doubted/rejected)
Whatever's perfectly existing is indubitably existing.

2)
Semantically/objectively we know what's perfectly triangular (a perfect triangle)
Semantically/objectively do we know what's perfectly existing?

3)
There is nothing better than a perfect existence or a perfect being. If x is a perfect existence/being, then x exists perfectly. This is semantically/objectively contradictory to deny (just as it is semantically/objectively contradictory to deny that triangles are triangular).

4)
Do we know what a perfect existence/being is?
God (or the perfectly omnipresent. Existence is Omnipresent. God and Existence denote the same. A truly perfect being and a truly perfect existence denote the same)

Given 1-4, God indubitably exists.

Here's the full work:
http://godisallthatmatters.com/2021/05/ ... ue-cogito/

[Age]

Here's a new ontological argument for all who are interested.

1)
Whatever's perfectly x is indubitably x (for example, a perfect triangle is indubitably triangular. An imperfect triangle's triangularity can be faulted/doubted/rejected)
Whatever's perfectly existing is indubitably existing.

2)
Semantically/objectively we know what's perfectly triangular (a perfect triangle)
Semantically/objectively do we know what's perfectly existing?

3)
There is nothing better than a perfect existence or a perfect being. If x is a perfect existence/being, then x exists perfectly. This is semantically/objectively contradictory to deny (just as it is semantically/objectively contradictory to deny that triangles are triangular).

4)
Do we know what a perfect existence/being is?
God (or the perfectly omnipresent. Existence is Omnipresent. God and Existence denote the same. A truly perfect being and a truly perfect existence denote the same)

Given 1-4, God indubitably exists.

Anything could be doubted. But, not everything can be refuted.

So, just formulate an irrefutable argument, which is just a sound and valid argument, that God exists, then 'that' cannot be refuted.

[Philosopher19]

Anything could be doubted. But, not everything can be refuted.

There is a difference between meaningfully doubting something and saying you doubt something without actual doubting occurring. For example, one cannot doubt the triangularity of triangles if one is aware of the semantic. But one can doubt whether they ate x or y yesterday (here, meaningful doubt occurs)

So, just formulate an irrefutable argument, which is just a sound and valid argument, that God exists, then 'that' cannot be refuted.

I believe the new ontological argument I posted cannot be meaningfully doubted or rejected.

[FlashDangerpants]

Whatever's perfectly x is indubitably x

Any argument that hangs off such a meaningless premise is neither here nor there.

[Philosopher19]

Whatever's perfectly x is indubitably x

Any argument that hangs off such a meaningless premise is neither here nor there.

I think it's clearly meaningful. A perfect triangle's triangularity cannot be doubted whereas an imperfect triangle's triangularity can be both doubted and rejected.

[FlashDangerpants]

Whatever's perfectly x is indubitably x

Any argument that hangs off such a meaningless premise is neither here nor there.

I think it's clearly meaningful. A perfect triangle's triangularity cannot be doubted whereas an imperfect triangle's triangularity can be both doubted and rejected.

The first thing was nonsense. The rejoinder is just nonsense on repeat.